This is what I do, it's a major reason I run my own email server but thankfully the '+' hack built into many modern MTAs gives you an approximation of the same thing... sort of.

The problem with that approximation is that you have to either add rules each time you add a new email address to your email service (ie "OK, add bypass rule allowing emails to victim+megacorpllc@example.com through") or you can act reactively and add rules to block incoming emails from known spammers ("OK, add block rule for anything addressed to victim+spamco@example.com")

The second scenario, though easier, is easily hacked by someone deciding to just add random junk after the "+". So you have to do the first. And the first isn't always practical, and it's definitely never user friendly.

Two other issues:

After managing my own email, I can tell you the system only half works even if you control the domain and have an easy to access way to quickly add an email address. There are two major problems:

1. You need to do more than just add words, hacker/spammers do dictionary attacks on MTAs. I've lost count of the number of times I've woken up to 60 emails all telling me that to send bitcoin to some address to prevent them from showing compromising pictures of me whacking off to porn. eg don't use "newegg@example.com", use "xywengge@example.com"

(On that note, some companies, Aliexpress is one, ban you from using the company name in the email address. So be prepared to use more cryptic naming conventions.)

2. You will need to regularly change addresses with companies that legitimately share your address with affiliates. For example, Amazon sends your email to third party sellers when you make an order, or once did anyway. Over time, some of those third party sellers leak the email address anyway.

To be honest, I think we need to reinvent email. How is it we've reinvented instant messaging dozens of times since IRC, but we haven't replaced SMTP with something a little less abusable? And how is it that something we should be controlling is now owned and controlled by two, maybe three, major corporations (Google, Microsoft, and maybe Yahoo), who could, at any moment, destroy all interconnectivity with private services that aren't part of that three?

To be fair, CTRL ALT BACKSPACE is disabled by default on the majority of distros these days. Why... I don't know. But it is.

> This is exactly the problem - Linux crashes often

It really doesn't.

> Windows wasn't crashing on this hardware, only Linux (and Ubuntu is worse).

Good for you. You've found one piece of hardware Windows is marginally more reliable on than GNU/Linux. However, your anecdote does not outweigh the reality, which is the vast majority of GNU/Linux installs are rock solid, and Windows is only so-so (even on its own terms - let's not forget Windows reboots by design once a week as Microsoft forces frequently unwanted updates in a particularly obnoxious way.)

Alas if your argument held, then most people would have switched to GNU/Linux by now given the solid reputation of the latter. The fact that's not happened means there's more to it than people just using systems that crash less.

You misspelt "Ubuntu", and TFA doesn't mention Ubuntu, it just talks about "Linux", any Linux, Android included apparently as it doesn't include the "GNU/" prefix. Additionally, as it's open source, you can still continue to get security updates, you just may need to get them from a different source. If you're corporate that's not going to be difficult.

So all the selling off, or putting into trust, businesses done by prior Presidents is for show? (Even Trump did it for his first time in office.)

No, Trump is doing it because he's untouchable. As long as he lets the Republicans do the Project 2025 shit they'll never impeach him. No matter what. No. Matter. What.

This is so fucked up.

It's your boy Musk that's demanding it be decommissioned, not whatever you're calling the people you used to call ni**erlovers.

> 35 years ago there was no serious competition for Microsoft Office

35 years ago was 1990. Microsoft Office had existed for barely months having been released at around the same time as Windows 3.0 and only ran on what was considered a clumsy, difficult to use, memory hog called Microsoft Windows 3.0 which unlike the next point release never took hold. While Word for DOS existed, it wasn't part of "Office" and it had stiff competition.

For the next five years Word for Windows faced stiff competition from Wordperfect. Excel was generally considered superior to Lotus 123 for Windows, yes, but it was also only the fact Word and Excel were bundled into Office that pushed Word onto desktops.

Don't get me wrong, Word was never a bad choice, but it wasn't considered "better" than the big names of the competition. If it had, Microsoft wouldn't have had to resort to their extreme bundling strategies to get it out there.

> Microsoft Office can open 100% of stuff. Being able to open "most stuff" may not be good enough.

Microsoft Office cannot open 100% of "stuff", it's just good at its own formats. Its own formats used to be the standard, and are still the most popular, but this claim is absolute garbage.

> Sure. But then you have to replace it with something else, and that may cost money. Teams is effectively free, being bundled with existing Microsoft licenses.

Teams is less free than Word. Word you can buy as part of a standalone Office license. Teams - at least in its corporate form - you MUST subscribe to Office 365 for. And even if it were true, and you're comfortable using the cut down, no collab, version that comes "free" with Windows, Teams is only free if your time and sovereignty are worth nothing.

In practice there are dozens of alternatives to Teams and many, many, of those alternatives are free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech.

I'm not paying any company that forces ads on me jack shit. I really don't understand why anyone would pay for that - the only reason to pay for Prime right now is the fast delivery, not the TV service. If you're paying for TV from Amazon, and not the delivery thing, you're being ripped off. You are literally subsidizing advertising. Not just directly, but also by helping fund content that's been blessed by our corporate overlords and preventing content from being made that isn't.

FWLIW, the only streaming services that I have with ads right now are those that are either free or bundled with something I buy anyway. The only ones I actively pay for are three that are part of a $30/month bundle ($10/service doesn't seem bad to me.)

Don't pay for ads. Please. For the love of everything holy. The country's fucked up enough as it is. Paying for ads isn't doing anything other than cementing the power of the people who fucked it up.

You do know the Danish government actually has enough money to afford to self host its own email server - that is, obtain a /24, have it routed to them, and host the server on that, right? You know, like 99% of businesses that have more than ten employees did until Office 365?

Digital Ocean? Why the hell would the Danish government need a fucking VPS?

(Incidentally I run mine behind two cheap VPSes and have had no problems with either incoming or outgoing email, so not even your complaint would be right, even if the Danish government only has $2 a month to spend on this project.)

I self host my own email. Have *you* ever tried it?

I'm not saying the situation is great, but even before I set up SPF and DKIM this year (this year!) my emails were going through to everyone I wanted to communicate with.

And organizations like governments tend to have a few people on their staff capable of standing up an email server and keeping it maintained. You do know that until Office 365, virtually every business in the world had an email server, right?

I know I shouldn't expect much from the "I can't switch to Mastodon because I have to pick a server"/"The only way to host a website is with AWS, there wasn't a world wide web before 2006!" crowd, but c'mon, you should know better than that, right?

> Switching to libre office wont prevent this ?

I suspect the thinking is one or both of the following:

1. Switching to LibreOffice and GNU/Linux is part of a general switch away from Microsoft technologies, preventing Microsoft from abusing their power in future. And while neither may be email clients or servers, any move to them is going to imply a move to technologies that work under GNU/Linux - Microsoft Office, including Outlook, only "runs" as a set of web apps. In practice, it implies a switch to new, standards compliant, email systems, for example.

2. This is a direct (and for once entirely legitimate) effort to punish Microsoft. Microsoft's actions were a direct non-military attack on a sovereign nation. Why they did it is of no concern, the fact is they did, and switching a government away from their technologies will encourage the entire country to do so too, both depriving Microsoft of revenue, and of power.

The second comment is probably going to be controversial here: many will argue Microsoft "had to" do what it did for legal reasons. But that's also true of many participants in attacks on foreign nations. And Microsoft has had plenty of time to shield itself from such attacks, such as contracting with third parties outside of the US to run local infrastructure out of the US's jurisdiction. But even if it hadn't, who else deserves punishment for this? If the US government wants to abuse US companies to attack foreign nations, then it has to accept the logical consequences that those US companies will ultimately pay the price, with US employees and US shareholders impacted and ultimately the US's lead in the world deteriorating. You cannot separate the US government from the private businesses it imposes mandates upon. The US will be weakened - economically, militarily, and influentially - by an abusive US government.

WSL, at least WSL2, uses full virtualization - that is, it's a full VM. It's kind of crummy because it looks lightweight when you're setting it up - no tell-tell windows with kernel boot messages and mode changes that'd clue you in on what's happening - but it's actually no lighter than VirtualBox. Well, it doesn't have the legal overheads of VirtualBox ;-) (I think you may be right about WSL 1 but it's barely used and was badly implemented at the time - it couldn't run systemd for instance, and I know you're about to go "But I don't want syste..." etc and I'm not going to have an argument on the merits of systemd, but the fact is if it can't run systemd it can't run the majority of modern OSes. Ubuntu under WSL 1 was a pain because you had to manually start up nginx and php-fpm if you were doing LEMP development, for instance, each time you restarted the WSL instance.)

What Apple are claiming is that they've reduced the overheads of virtualization which I find a little suspect. Other than, usually minor, security improvements, real containerization is vastly superior to VM stuff, it's massively more efficient in terms of both memory and speed.

And looking at what Apple is claiming, I suspect it's BS and all they've done is found ways to make the userland of GNU/Linux more efficient to counter the CPU and memory overheads of virtualization. Which (1) could be applied to containers to, oh wait, it is, that's literally what Docker et al are, and (2) guarantees that if you actually need to run a real OS rather than a stripped down one as your container then you're in a WSL1 situation where the tech just isn't going to work, it'll give you a kludgy half implemented OS with a lot of core functionality broken.

The only place I can see this type of design being useful might be some "Docker production" instance where you want to run Docker-like images but with FRACTIONALLY MOAH SECURITY. And, well, Apple doesn't sell servers and seems to consider that market beneath it.

I think normal containers would have been a better choice given they're marketing this at devs.

(My original reply seems to have disappeared so redoing it)

Four years and a little over five months, but yes, this wasn't an appropriate criticism.

A better one would have been "They set up all this shit and didn't foresee the risks, and now we have a fascist in office salivating at the chance to abuse this information?"

Four years and a little over five months, but yes, this wasn't an appropriate criticism.

A better one would have been "They set up all this shit and didn't foresee the risks, and now we have a fascist in office salivating at the chance to abuse this information?"

Wi-Fi isn't exactly a solved problem under Linux either. You basically have a tiny number of chipsets supported by Linux itself, those made by Intel and one or two others (so, thankfully, the ones likely to be built into your computer) - but it all goes south the moment you try to use something less likely to come with your motherboard. Very often if a driver is available at all, it needs to be compiled from source and doesn't work with more recent kernels.

I think the FOSS community might do themselves some favors by working together on a common strategy to support Wi-Fi devices. Maybe device drivers in general (at a low level) but definitely Wi-Fi.